Alleged rigging: LHC adjourns PTI hearing on basis of unoriginal documents

Sardar Ayaz Sadiq had contended that the documents submitted were not original.


Rana Tanveer July 07, 2014

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) adjourned on Monday the hearing of a petition against proceedings before an election tribunal on an appeal of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan seeking recounting in constituency NA-122 in Lahore.

Speaker of the National assembly Sardar Ayaz Sadiq had filed the petition and contended that the documents and affidavits presented by Imran in the tribunal were not original, and were photocopies.

He pleaded that the tribunal could not hold proceedings unless original documents were provided. In this regard, Justice Ijazul Ahsan had already stayed the tribunal’s proceedings.

On Monday, Imran’s counsel sought a week’s time to file a response to the petition. The judge turned down the request and directed the counsel to advance his conclusive arguments on Tuesday.

The PTI chief had lost his elected seat from NA-122 to Sadiq, and had approached the election tribunal for recounting and inspection of votes.

COMMENTS (7)

Salman | 7 years ago | Reply

PTI has given time frame of one month to federal government and Supreme Court to decide about its rigging allegations in four constituencies. Imran Khan has said that he will wait for one week, otherwise Long March will be inevitable. So the judiciary and Election Tribunals have to act fast. NA-122 election result declaring Sardar Ayaz Sadiq of PML-N winner, was challenged by PTI last year, Imran Khan had ample time to present original documents. PTI counsel should proceed according to law. If they have any solid proofs, then they should be able to present them in High Court. Let's see how the further proceedings go.

Insafian | 7 years ago | Reply

@Ranjha: Now that was really classic. Haha....

Will he prefer the window seat?

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read